Experiential Learning Program Evaluation Criteria

Seed proposals are evaluated according to the following criteria:

• Justification of need: How well-described is the intended activity? How significant and realistic are its goals? How urgent and important is the need for developing the proposed activity? How well-thought out are the plans and/or pilots and how will they improve the development of the future experiential educational offerings? How well does it fit with plans of Departments, Programs, Shared Resources or other relevant stakeholders? How necessary is this extra seed effort toward developing the full experience?
• Impact: How impactful will the potential experience be, both in terms of who will be served and how the experience will benefit them? How significant is the breadth of impact? If external participants are to be included, how well are the needs of Stanford students and/or researchers also being served? How well does it support diversity and/or outreach to underserved populations? How impactful are the expected outcomes?
• Finances: How unique is this effort from previous efforts that have received C-ShaRP funding and/or support from other sources? Is this up front cost likely to pay off in the long run? How does the path to sustainability look; how good is the potential for cost sharing/matching and other possible sources of funding or revenue streams for support when this seed develops into a successful activity?
• Space: How well are space considerations planned for, e.g. to access the type(s) of space(s) required for the experience? If space is not adequate as-is, how appropriate are the proposed adjustments?
• Budget: Are the costs of the proposed seed activities well described and reasonable? Have all likely costs been accounted for?

Implementation proposals are evaluated according to the following criteria:

• Justification of need: How well-described is the experience? How significant and realistic are its goals? How urgent and important is the need for the proposed experience?? How well suited is the format of the experience to achieving its goals? How well does the experience improve existing educational offerings on campus? How well does it fit with plans of Departments, Programs, Shared Facilities or other relevant stakeholders?
• Impact: How impactful will this experience be, both in terms of who will be served and how the experience will benefit them? How significant is the breadth of impact? If external participants are included, how well are the needs of Stanford students and/or researchers also being served? How well does it support diversity and/or outreach to underserved populations? How impactful are the expected outcomes and how will they be measured?
• Finances: Has this or a related effort previously received C-ShaRP funding and/or support from other sources? How does the path to sustainability look; what is the potential for cost sharing/matching, other potential sources of funding or revenue streams to support a successful proposal?
• Space: How suitable is the planned space for the experience? If needed, how achievable and effective are the described improvements or strategies to be implemented to better support the student experience?
• Budget: Are the costs of developing, preparing, and carrying out the experience well described and reasonable? Have all likely costs been accounted for? If durable teaching equipment is requested, is it well justified and within the $5K limit? Is any anticipated income, e.g. workshop registration fees, well utilized?

Curriculum Sustainability proposals are evaluated according to the following criteria:

• Justification of need: How long has this program been running? How well did the previous implementation(s) of this experience achieve its goals and improve educational offerings on campus? How well will any planned changes, enhancements, refinements, format changes sustain the program? What progress has been made in integrating this offering with plans of Departments, Programs, Shared Facilities or other relevant stakeholders? Why is continued C-ShaRP funding necessary?
• Impact: How impactful has this experience been, both in terms of who was served and how the experience benefited them? What was the breadth of impact? How well did it support diversity and/or outreach to underserved populations? How well did outcomes meet expectations? Where expectations were not met, are appropriate adjustments planned? Given any aspects of the above described impact that are expected to be different, how impactful will the sustained support be?
• Finances: Can the experience be well sustained at this level of funding? Has the funding model progressed appropriately from the previous C-ShaRP supported experience? Has funding been secured from other sources, will there be cost sharing/matching to support this experience? If not, is funding from other sources being pursued? How realistic is the plan for a path to sustainability for this experience? What cost sharing/matching, and/or other potential revenue streams would support a successful proposal, e.g., registration fees, sponsorships.
• Space: How suitable is the space to be used for the experience? If needed, how achievable and effective are the described improvements or strategies to be implemented to better support the student experience?
• Instructors’ Forum: Have instructors participated in all the C-ShaRP Instructors’ Forum sessions?
• Budget: Are the costs of preparing and carrying out the experience well described and reasonable? If there are development costs, are these well described to enhance this iteration of the experience? Have all likely costs been accounted for? If durable teaching equipment is requested, is it well justified in light of the previous iterations and within the $5K limit? Is any anticipated income, e.g. workshop registration fees, well utilized?